Tottenham Vs Chelsea: Match Thread

[dagraham]

Disagree. Townsend was a great outlet today. He constantly drew fouls and, in my opinion, had a really good game. Surprisingly enough, I was imploring him to shoot. Don't think he got many shots away today.

Andros needs to track back and help out defensively.

Personally, I think Avb missed a trick by not putting Townsend on the left, particularly in the second half when Chelsea were controlling the midfield and we were desperate for natural width.

I'm not sold on inverted wide players all the time. Sometimes we need to mix it up a bit.

 

[Mr Pink]

Disagree. Townsend was a great outlet today. He constantly drew fouls and, in my opinion, had a really good game. Surprisingly enough, I was imploring him to shoot. Don't think he got many shots away today.

Andros needs to track back and help out defensively.

I thought it was Andros's best game in the League for us yet.

 

[liam17oi]

Personally, I think Avb missed a trick by not putting Townsend on the left, particularly in the second half when Chelsea were controlling the midfield and we were desperate for natural width.

I'm not sold on inverted wide players all the time. Sometimes we need to mix it up a bit.

Especially when you consider Ivanovic was already on a yellow.

 

[Scottish Spur]

Today looks a decent point with the other results. Next 3 fixtures are West Ham (h), Villa (a) and Hull (h). Win those 3 and today will look absolutely fine. Providing we beat the sides we should beat then draws against rival teams are great results. Worryingly, Arsenal's next 3 are West Brom (a), Norwich (h) and Palace (a). North London could be handily placed after the first rough quarter of the season.

 

[liam17oi]

I thought it was Andros's best game in the League for us yet.

I always thought as he gets more time he'll improve his decision making and today vindicated that. If he could learn to track back like Azza does, or like Lamela has been doing, he'd be even better.

 

[Misfit]

I think, or rather hope, that AVB will have one winger who looks to cut in and one out and out wide man to get that attacking balance as things settle down with integrating new players and injured players returning to full fitness.. It will also allow us to overload the final 3rd at times but not leave us so vulnerable to counter-attack if you have one FB staying back or at least have a winger able to get back and cover as needed.

Otherwise, you might as well play a false #9 instead of a striker who is largely, save a few moments throughout the game, surplus to requirements through a lack of chances being played through the middle or crosses coming in.

 

[Scottish Spur]

The inverted wingers spoiled us today and I think Mourinho knew what he was doing. Overload the middle, watch Spurs bunch up as we go central, reduce the space for Eriksen, Paulinho, Dembele to play in. Pretty simple really. An out and out wingman who hit the byline was needed. Having said that, AVB brought Chadli on wide right and moved away from inverted wingers for the first time this year. Maybe this was his intention ?

This is partially why Walker annoys me. He isn't reading the game and pushing far enough up and offering us the width we desperately need when our wingers keep coming in.

 

[liam17oi]

I see no problem with playing inverted wingers on both flanks. We have Walker and Rose who are best at bombing up and down the wings. This opens the pitch right up, pulling opposition players out of position. Lennon is our only out and out winger. Walker has looked fantastic this season getting up and down, imo.

If you have full-backs who can play this role then this system is effective. Both counter-attacking and pulling around teams who sit behind the ball.

 

[jambreck]

No, I'm talking about a low cross in the second half.

All the way across goal. Hugo couldn't get to it and, thankfully, the Chelsea player sliding in at the far post (Oscar?) couldn't get enough on it to turn it into the empty goal.

And there was definitely a moment when Hugo had to come off his line to save. Wasn't offside because play carried on.

I'm glad that you felt comfortable, though. I didn't. Not because we were conceding a huge number of chances but rather because the pressure was building. We couldn't keep the ball and were conceding too much space in midfield. If that had carried on for the entire 90 +, I'm not sure that Chelsea wouldn't have created two or three more good chances. And maybe that would have been the difference? Thankfully Torres made things more comfortable for those of us who weren't as fortunate as you!

Further to this, I've just seen the replay. It was when Schurrle was put clean through by Torres. Brilliant goalkeeping once again by Hugo. Great positioning in the first place and then got down so well to his right to block the ball.

 

[Mr Pink]

Don't agree with all of this, but certainly quite a bit of it (16 conclusions from 365) :


*It was a proverbial game of two halves that revealed a great deal about the strengths and weaknesses of both teams and both managers as Spurs had Chelsea on the ropes in the first half before the Blues battled their way back into the match after the break. A draw was certainly a fair result, for as good as Chelsea were in the second period, they were truly dire in the first as Jose Mourinho engendered an inferiority complex in his team with his selection and system.
"They were better than us in the first half," said Mourinho after the match. "In the second half, only one team. And the team was very, very strong until the moment the referee made a big mistake.
"At that moment we were much better. They were in big trouble. We win everything in the middle, every second ball in the midfield. "
*Mourinho's analysis is entirely correct as Chelsea somehow recovered to dominate a midfield battle that seemed beyond them before the break. Although the manager's starting line-up left much to be desired, he admitted his recurring error at half time by introducing Juan Mata for John Obi Mikel and moving Ramires into the middle. The result of that decision saw Chelsea gain more drive through the centre as Ramires, Oscar and Mata demanded more restraint from Paulinho, in particular, and Mousa Dembele. It was an obvious change for Mourinho to make, but it worked to great effect.
*Contrast the master's changes with those of the apprentice, on which two dropped points can be pinned. There were warning signs for Spurs from the outset of the second half, but Andre Villas-Boas failed to address the evident concerns as his team eventually relied on Fernando Torres' dismissal to gain respite. The Portuguese's first change - bringing on Nacer Chadli for Andros Townsend just after the hour mark - was hugely uninspiring and did nothing to stem the Chelsea tide. Then Lewis Holtby was introduced for Christian Eriksen. Then Jermain Defoe for Roberto Soldado. It was all much of muchness and of little help to Spurs' ailing performance as Chelsea continued to dominate up until Torres' red card ten minutes from time.
The obvious substitution that Villas-Boas absurdly ignored was to introduce the defensive-minded Sandro for Paulinho ten or 15 minutes into the second period when Chelsea's improvement had become apparent. The bigger Brazilian would have been the perfect spoiler to the Blues' renewed confidence but he was bizarrely left on the bench as Spurs were increasingly overrun. Had Villas-Boas made that change, the hosts would have stood a much, much better chance of holding on to three points.
*While Villas-Boas excelled in being proactive - picking the right personnel and system to generate a strong start - but failed to react to the change in the flow of the game, the opposite was true of Mourinho. The Chelsea boss again left Mata on the bench as Ramires was selected on the right and his tactics exhibited alarming and unneccesary caution, underlined by a much-improved second half. Mourinho has repeatedly expressed his desire to change the way Chelsea have played over the past two years, but if the height of his ambition is to have his team fire long balls to Torres then the Blues will continue to struggle. At least Chelsea relied on that approach to a lesser degree in the second half as Mata provided the missing link between midfield and attack that allowed the visitors to play with more fluency and intent.
*Just why was Mourinho so negative at the start? Before the game he claimed that Spurs are title contenders this year, but should Chelsea really have considered themselves the underdogs in this fixture as the manager's approach suggested? "I think they are a big contender," said Mourinho on Friday. "They were the champions of the market, all of them international players with quality. They have a much better squad and because you win titles with squads - you don't win titles with an especially good player - I think they are much more contenders than they were before."
Although Spurs are clearly stronger than last season despite Gareth Bale's departure, Mourinho's plan to hit early balls to Torres in the hope that Oscar and Eden Hazard could feed off the striker was always unlikely to work. There was one opportunity that almost came off just before half time, when a knockdown fell to Oscar who volleyed straight at Hugo Lloris, but other than that Chelsea displayed a woeful lack of creativity before Mourinho's changes.
*Apart from some sloppy passing, Paulinho was excellent in the first half, driving through Chelsea's sluggish midfield of Frank Lampard and Mikel to play a key role in Spurs' attacks. The Brazilian is a box-to-box throwback - a player who can cover the length of the pitch and is allowed to do so by his manager owing to his impressive contribution and the platform provided by the superb Dembele. While Chelsea's midfielders were statuesque before the break, Paulinho was up and down like a yo-yo and twice came close to scoring after bursting into the box in similar fashion to his late winner against Cardiff. The 25-year-old is bound to score more crucial goals this season if he's allowed to play with such freedom and continues to play with such purpose.
*On to Chelsea's No. 10 debate. Is it not somewhat absurd that Mourinho has made such an issue over who should play this role for Chelsea and then chose to bypass the position entirely by encouraging long passes to a solitary striker? The manager has declared that Oscar is his favourite to play No. 10 at the moment, but the Brazilian had little involvement in the first half and it was only when Mata was introduced that Chelsea's attack began to show any sort of cohesion. Mourinho might as well have played Mikel as his No. 10 in the first period for all the use he got out of Oscar.
*Mata was crucial to Chelsea's comeback, assisting John Terry's header with his free-kick and aiding the fluency of the Blues' attacks, but the Spaniard has had better games and understandably needs a run in the team to regain his previous influence. Only Torres created more chances for his teammates than Mata, but one's memory drifts back to the playmaker's match-winning display at the Lane last season - when he scored twice and assisted a third in a 4-2 win - and ponders whether Mata will ever be allowed to rediscover that level of impact under Mourinho.
*I won't be the first or the last to tell you this, but Kyle Walker is a staggeringly average defender. The PFA Young Player of the Year in 2012 has been on a slippery slope ever since and is now a concerning weak spot in Spurs' defence. Walker made a glaring error that led to a goal in this fixture last season when he dallied on the ball and was robbed by Mata, and history almost repeated itself just before half time as Oscar pinched the ball from the right-back when he dawdled on the edge of the box. Walker needs to buck up his ideas and fast.
*While Walker remains a point of vulnerability, Hugo Lloris again exhibited peerless awareness to rush from his line and deny Andre Schurrle when the forward was played through on goal. Attack appears to be Lloris' best form of defence, as he comes for almost every cross and is always on his toes to avert the danger of long balls over the top. The only question over the keeper's contribution is his abysmal average pass completion rate of just 39% this season, making the Frenchman 16th out of all regular Premier League shot-stoppers.
*After another match in which Chelsea failed to score through one of their strikers, the decision to wait on Wayne Rooney instead of pursuing another first-rate forward over the summer looks increasingly foolish. Torres at least showed some desire and effort after the interval and stretched Spurs' back line on two occasions, crossing for Oscar's Gazza moment and then leaving Michael Dawson on his backside before firing straight at Lloris. That his biggest contribution to the game came with his sending off, however, reinforces the point that he is no longer a player Chelsea can rely on
(Yes, it was a debatable sending off, but he already deserved to walk for threatening to hurt Jan Vertonghen's lovely face.)
Indeed, Torres never has been that player for the Blues and nor does it seem that sticking plaster Samuel Eto'o will be after arriving at Stamford Bridge at 32 and after two years in Russia. Demba Ba didn't even make the squad, which says everything you need to know about Mourinho's faith in him.
*Speaking of struggling strikers, Roberto Soldado's iffy start at Spurs has been masked by two match-winning penalties in the first two Premier League matches and a brace against Dinamo Tbilisi in the Europa League. Although the Spaniard assisted Gylfi Sigurdsson's opening goal on Saturday (even that was an under-hit pass) he was largely anonymous until he was replaced by Defoe. In many ways Soldado is a limited attacker, designed to finish chances rather than play any part in the build-up (despite what his assist might suggest). Unlike Alvaro Negredo at Manchester City, Soldado is incapable of playing with his back to goal and holding off defenders, with his dreadful pass completion rate of 27% on Saturday (as well as a poor 77% average thus far) highlighting deficiencies in his link-up play.
*While Spurs must improve the service to Soldado so that the striker can improve on a relatively low average of 2.3 shots per game (the fourth highest average at Spurs), Christian Eriksen's influence should help create more chances for the Spaniard. The Dane almost seemed an afterthought at Spurs in their summer transfer business, but he has proven to be the most important signing so far as his superb play for the opening goal demonstrated. Eriksen views the game at least two actions into the future, showing incredible foresight to play a neat pass for Soldado to lay the ball into Sigurdsson's path. As The Times journalist Matt Hughes said on Twitter, it's ironic that Spurs wouldn't have signed Eriksen if Chelsea hadn't stolen Willian, who didn't even make the bench on Saturday. One wonders why Spurs were allowed a free run at the Dane when most of the other clubs at the top of the league could also have benefitted from a player of his unquestionable quality.
*As much as Spurs failed to impose themselves in the second half, Jermain Defoe had a brilliant chance to win the match in the last five minutes. You would back the striker to score from that angle (on the left, inside the box and opening up on to his right foot) every time, but he fired his shot harmlessly at Petr Cech. A wasted chance for Spurs and for Defoe, considering the opportunity presented to him by Soldado's poor performance.
*The striker situation and Mata's future has dominated the focus at Chelsea at the start of the season, but as I wrote here, Mourinho's failure to bring in a new holding midfielder is of equal importance. Villas-Boas didn't begin the painstaking task of dismantling the old guard for the hell of it - it was a transition that needed to be undertaken. And yet here we are in 2013, with Frank Lampard and John Obi Mikel still starting at the base of the Blues' midfield. Although Mata's introduction allowed Ramires to drop into the middle and help Chelsea gain control, it's clear that Spurs, Arsenal and Man City are all possess a stronger centre than the Blues this season.
*Villas-Boas claimed that Chelsea will be happier with a point after Spurs threw away the lead, but neither side will be too disappointed after results elsewhere on Saturday. Mourinho and Arsene Wenger have claimed that there are six teams in the title race this season and the first six matches suggest we are in for many more twists and turns in an exciting battle at the top.

 

[jambreck]

I'll write a longer post some point later when I am bored and need to avoid doing work but really there wasn't anyone individually who fucked up.
- I thought AVB got the starting line-up badly wrong but the way we played early on in the game shows he was spot on.
- We scored a good goal after a half of excellent attacking team play
- Upon scoring we showed no desire to put them to the sword
-The problem for us wasn't that we couldn't win the ball back but that we couldn't hold on to it or do anything with it when we had it. A lot of players are saying we needed to drop an attacker for another DM to stem the flow but I don't think it would have changed the result. We'd have been more solid at the back but we'd still be defending most of the game, conceding dangerous freekicks and looking impotent with the ball.
-We couldn't hold it because the mentality of the team changed from wanting to have a go at Chelsea. When everyone has that mentality the players know they can trust someone to make a run or cover when pressing and the difference between that and needing to look up is the difference between slipping in a through ball and getting dispossessed.
-Soldado is the kind of striker who makes intelligent runs that a high possession passing team can pick out. When we were under pressure we needed someone to drop off the cb's and win knock downs, plus hold the ball up and bring others in to it. Dare I say it but......Adebayor would have been really useful had we had him available.
- We missed Rose offering another body in midfield to give passing options. Small things like that make a big difference to breaking out of a high pressure pressing system like Chelsea's.
- All in all it was because we dropped off and invited them on to us the reason we chucked the lead. Mentality and confidence.

Only thing I'd disagree with there is your belief that Sandro for Siggi wouldn't have changed much.

I think it would. And if we'd also substituted a tiring Paulinho for Holtby, I think we'd have been a lot more dynamic in midfield. It might not have led to us keeping possession any better but, at the very least, we'd have put them under greater pressure and forced more mistakes when they were in possession. And that might well have won us the ball in better areas, where we could hurt them. Their defence was there for the taking.

 

[MiamiYiddo]

Getting seriously fucked off with the wing play leading to plenty of corners that we do absolutely nothing from.

 

[chinaman]

I thought it was Andros's best game in the League for us yet.

He created 2 very good scoring chances and a half chance in the first half; and we could easily have been 3 up had they been taken and would have won the match.

 

[Sweetsman]

This.

I think that was to shore up the left as Naughton was exposed and they were overloading that side. I think that Paulinho should have been replaced by Sandro, because we were being eviscerated through the middle and he plays well with Dembele. I think the reason may have been that Paulinho offers a greater attacking threat, that AVB wanted all three points and he didn't believe that Chelski would be able to keep it up. I don't think they did keep it up, but then scored and got a second wind. They wound up Verts to the point that he was losing his cool and his concentration.

 

[sim0n]

We're currently 2nd in the table and competitive in all competitions so far,... AWESOME start to the season, no complaints here with the team just starting to get to know each other. Life is good and the future is bright, let's not get lost in the minutia

COYS!!!

 

[Francis Gibbs]

Dembele was the nuts today .... just saying!

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

"I honestly stopped reading at "the soldier". If your giving him a nickname then you will always big him up and slate defoe"

Like i give a toss when you stopped reading the post. Do you really not know where the word Soldier comes from?

 

[Lilbaz]

"I honestly stopped reading at "the soldier". If your giving him a nickname then you will always big him up and slate defoe"

Like i give a toss when you stopped reading the post. Do you really not know where the word Soldier comes from?

In the early days of Rome its soldiers were given a handful of salt each day. The salt ration was subsequently replaced by a sum of money allowing each man to buy his own, and relieving the commisariat of the trouble of transporting it. The money received was referred to as their "salt money" (salarium in Latin).
Eventually, the term would make its way into medieval France, where a soldier's payment was known as his solde (which is still in use today as the term for a soldier's or sailor's pay), and it was in paid for with a special coin called a sol. By extension, the word also came to refer not only to a soldier's wage, but also to the soldier himself, evidenced by the medieval French term soldat, which itself came from the Old French soudier. For its part, the English word "soldier" comes from the Middle English souder, which also derived from soudier.

Or did you mean that Soldado means soldier in Spanish?

 

[ohtottenham!]

I'd start him over Townsend any day of the week. More creative, quicker to turn and can thread a pass through the eye of a needle. Townsend is predicable, as poor at shooting aimlessly as Defoe and is stunted for ideas.

I guess folks see different things. Townsend wasn't predictable first half yesterday; he gave them fits, pulled their defence all over the issue at times. He's learning not to over-shoot, and he put that pass into Paulinho for the shot against the post. I see Townsend as more integral for us than Siggy, despite Siggy's goal. Like them both, but Townsend defo gives us more.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

"Or did you mean that Soldado means soldier in Spanish"?


Yes Sir.

Perhaps in future i should refer to Defoe as Mr Defoe so not to irritate the more sensitive fan among us.......